OPINION/COMMENTARY

EPA's Space Odyssey

The pivotal issue here is not whether farmers are adhering to the refuge requirements, or what is the best way to measure regulatory compliance. It is that the very basis of the EPA's regulatory policy towards gene-spliced plants and foods is unscientific and nonsensical. The EPA holds gene-spliced plants to a higher standard than other similar crop and garden plants, requiring the hugely expensive testing -- as though they were chemical pesticides -- of varieties of corn, cotton wheat and tomatoes that have been genetically improved for enhanced pest- or disease-resistance. The policy fails to recognize that there are important differences between spraying synthetic, toxic chemicals, and genetic approaches to enhancing plants' natural pest and disease resistance.
EPA's policy is so potentially damaging and outside scientific norms that it has galvanized the scientific community. A consortium of dozens of scientific societies representing more than 180,000 biologists and food professionals published a report warning that the policy will discourage the development of new pest-resistant crops and prolong and increase the use of synthetic chemical pesticides, increase the regulatory burden for developers of pest-resistant crops, limit the use of biotechnology to larger developers who can pay the inflated regulatory costs, and handicap US companies competing in international markets. All of these warnings have come to pass...

Center Urges House Committee to Investigate Greenpeace

Hon. William M. Thomas
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Thomas:

On behalf of the Center for Individual Freedom, I write to ask that the Committee on Ways and Means investigate and hold hearings on abuses of tax-exempt status by non-profit organizations in general, and violations committed by the group Greenpeace in particular.
While tax violations by for-profit corporations have for some time captured legislative, regulatory, media, and public attention, similar violations by non-profits have gone largely unnoticed. Because of the magnitude of the budgets involved � and the magnitude of the corresponding impact on taxpayers � it would be prudent to bring this issue to the forefront.
To explain how non-profits routinely circumvent federal tax laws, Public Interest Watch, a non-profit watchdog, recently issued a report on the financial practices of Greenpeace. The report documents how during a three-year period Greenpeace Fund, Inc., diverted over $24 million in tax-deductible contributions to related entities for use in non-qualifying programs. In doing so, Greenpeace Fund, Inc., violated both the letter and the spirit of the law under which it was chartered, IRC Section 501(c)(3), cheating taxpayers in the process...

Revised New Source Review Will Help Clean-Air Efforts

The aim of President Bush's new source review program is to speed up the modernization of older utilities with newer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient technology. Under the 1977 Clean Air Act's new source review provisions, older utilities and industrial facilities that weren't required to install state-of-the-art pollution reduction equipment were required to install the best available pollution reduction devices if they expanded or substantially modified their power plants.
Older power plants were allowed to perform periodic maintenance, repairs and upgrades without having to file paperwork for or undergo a new source review. However, as the National Academy of Public Administration has noted, regulators were given little guidance concerning what counts as routine maintenance as opposed to a substantial modification or expansion.
As a result, a review is lengthy and the results are unpredictable, making it nearly impossible for industrial facilities to change operations quickly...

"Soft Kyoto" Strategy Raises Energy Concerns

As part of the deal moving energy legislation out of the Senate, leaders agreed to schedule debate on the "Climate Stewardship Act" (S. 139), sponsored by Presidential aspirants Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut). Like the Kyoto Protocol, S. 139 would impose caps on carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. power, manufacturing, and transportation sectors.
McCain says he does not expect Congress to enact his bill. However, conference committee members may feel they have to accept a renewable portfolio standard--a top priority for Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)--in order to look "green" and produce a bill Democratic leaders can support.
The possibility of an RPS provision in the energy bill raises several red flags for energy economists and policy analysts.
-- An RPS is fundamentally a set-aside program--corporate welfare that would not exist in a free market. At whatever level it is initially set, the RPS will function as a floor, not a ceiling. Once enacted, it will strengthen the renewable-energy lobby and grow like other entitlements. The potential to exploit consumers, misdirect capital investment, and undermine the productivity of electric-intensive industries is great. In March 2002, John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), Lieberman, and 27 other senators voted for a 20 percent RPS--twice the size of S. 517's mandate. Enacting a 10 percent RPS would encourage them to keep pushing, year after year, until Congress ratchets up the RPS to 20 percent or higher.
-- A nationwide RPS is an unfunded, one-size-fits-all federal mandate. Why require states to develop implementation plans for meeting federal clean air standards if Congress is going to dictate the details of those plans? States are already free to subsidize and mandate the use of renewables if they wish, and many do. A nationwide RPS tosses federalism out the window.
-- If Congress forces the power sector to use more non-fossil energy, utilities will have less reason to resist Kyoto or McCain-Lieberman, since they will already effectively comply with a carbon cap. Some may even lobby for McCain-Lieberman, figuring their renewable portfolios will make them net sellers of carbon credits under a cap-and-trade program. Instead of mollifying the Kyoto crowd, enacting an RPS will simply tee up McCain-Lieberman for the next round...

Glaciers, 'Global Warming,' and NY Times Hysteria

Speaking in grave tones, the editors of the New York Times have informed us that global warming--of the man-made, catastrophic variety--is fomenting "startling changes in landscapes once thought immutable." They cite several examples, including troublesome signs in Alaska, and now, a new study from three scientists that the Arctic's largest ice shelf is "disintegrating" (note: the editors studiously avoid discussing the retraction of a front-page Times story in 2001 linking global warming with "open sea ice" in Antarctica).
Surely proof of man-induced global warming, right?
Not exactly: "It is not yet possible, [the three scientists] say, to tie the melting directly to rising atmospheric concentrations of so-called greenhouse gases, or to the human activities--chiefly the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil--that create these gases."...